Greg Jackson <gaj....@yahoo.com>: Aug 10 05:28PM -0700
Based on my experience on DPR and as a Trustee, I'd like to propose some
substantial changes to the Consent process. The idea behind Consent is
to not waste Trustee time on projects where there's no substantial issue
to be addressed. The problem is that the current process, as it's
evolved over the past few years, has instead become a mechanism simply
to delay discussion and Trustee decisions.
Currently projects that are approved by DPR, PRC, T&T, and/or PDO go to
the Consent Agenda at the next Trustee meeting. Under Robert's Rules and
our Bylaws, anyone can ask that an item be pulled from Consent for full
discussion at "...the Trustees’ next monthly or special meeting for a
full discussion". Traditionally requests to pull items from Consent were
made in person at Trustee meetings, and so pulled projects weren't voted
on until the next meeting.
There are four components to the current process:
1. When a request to "pull" can be made
2. Who can "pull" a project from Consent
3. Whether whoever pulls a project must state her or his objection, and
specifically
1. whether the objection must refer to a specific provision in the
Community Plan or the Municipal Code, or
2. the objection can be more general, or
3. the objector need not state his or her objection.
4. When the "pulled" item is discussed and voted on
Here are the changes I suggest:
1. *Major projects should bypass Consent*, and go directly on the
Project Review agenda for the Trustee meeting following vote(s) by
the relevant committee(s). I'd define "major projects" as
1. Any project that involves more than four non-ADU units
2. Any project that involves demolishing, remodeling, or otherwise
modifying an existing structure where the resulting gross floor
area (as counted in FAR calculations) is more than 75% greater
than the existing structure's
3. Any project that requires a change in zoning, a lot tie or other
property-line rearrangement, or an exemption from the provisions
of the La Jolla Planned District or the La Jolla Shores Planned
District
2. *Controversial projects should bypass Consent*, and go directly on
the Project Review agenda for the Trustee meeting following vote(s)
by the relevant committee(s). I'd define "controversial project" as
any project where the committee votes for and against the project
differed by no more than 1, or where the committee Chair voted to
make or break a tie.
3. *If a project received unanimous approval or disapproval from the
committe(s) that reviewed it, not counting absentions, then only a
Trustee can "pull" it from Consent*. Otherwise anyone can pull a
project from Consent.
4. *Requests to "pull" must be made in person *at a Trustee meeting
5. Other than as suggested in A and B, *projects pulled from Consent
should be placed on the Project Review agenda at a subsequent
meeting*, in the same sequence they were voted on by committee(s)
I believe that if we implemented these procedures the Consent Agenda
would almost always be approved without pulls, and major or problematic
cases would receive prompt review and votes by the Trustees.
(GJ) *Greg Jackson*
La Jolla Community Planning Association ● https://lajollacpa.org
+1-773-936-9235 ● https://gjackson.us |
